“Ahhh. Now we’re getting into the territory of whether illegal alien’s children should be granted citizenship.
In a word “no”.
Agreed. But that is the law and we have to live with it. (At least until it is repealed, if it ever is)”
I didn’t say it was right.
“Special dispensation is made for Cuban exiles, and the argument can be made that they ARE U.S. Citizens.
Ummmm, not quite. With dry feet, they cannot be deported back to Cuba. They still need to become naturalized to be US citizens. “
The “with dry feet” IS the special dispensation, and if their child is born in the U.S. then the child is considered a U.S. Citizen (unless the exiles decide to go back).
“Besides, why should Cubans be so special, hmmmm?”
Why should they? Because the U.S. government says they should be, and until we change THAT rule, we have to live with it.
“You asked me to define “natural born” (citizen), and I told you how I would define it.
Yes. But you never actually did define it except to give a circular definition, What you said boils down to: natural born means natural born. “
Well, in all honesty, EVERY definition is “circular”. The presumption that readers know the definitions of certain words in the definition is made. in MY simplified definition “Natural born citizen” means: offspring of two people born in the U.S. (don’t make me write about it’s possessions and military installations world-wide, your smarter than you’re making out to be).
“Except by half a dozen different government agencies. Immigration has rules about citizenship, DOD adopts those same rules, the State Department probably has their own rules. In them, they probably don’t have a glossary, but they have rules governing it.
Muddying the issue by deliberately confounding the rules for “citizenship” with being “natural born” doesn’t help.”
So what. If you don’t follow the rules, you don’t get to play.
“Yeah, especially for vaccuous twits.
Hey, you were the one that quoted it as if it was applicable in this election cycle, you even emphasized it as if it was crucially important today. “
Look, you obviously DIDN’T read the post I made where I inserted the whole paragraph from the Constitution. He asked about the difference between “Natural born citizen” and “citizen of the United States”. The citizen of the United States part was only about them that drew up the Constitution. I cleared that up for him. It IS CRUCIALLY important today, in that it doesn’t APPLY today.
Consequences are that the only part of that paragraph is “Natural born citizen”. The next phrase was asked about, but he didn’t quote the complete phrase. You similarly did the same thing, and I didn’t feel like typing the whole damn thing again.
If you want to carry on all assinine and stuff, that’s up to you.
If you are going to make judgments about what YOU think I did and did not do, please have your facts straight.
“I’m sorry you think that’s what that means.
The whole point is that I DO NOT know what “natural born” means, and neither do you. If you did, you could give an actual definition, rather than parroting a sentence that contains the phrase without actually defining it. “
I just did, up above. I am giving you MY definition of “natural born CITIZEN” (which if I’d like to berate you about, similar to the comments you made to me, I would be all over you for leaving off the word citizen, which is vitally important to the original question).
Besides, let’s see YOU define the word “IS” without using the word “IS”.
“I think the Founding Fathers intended that any future president be UNQUESTIONABLY an American, first, foremost, unambiguously and without any hint of divided loyalties.”
Sure, can you define American? So keeping with the spirit of YOUR posts, we can safely assume that Canadians, Mexicans, Columbians, Somoans, Brazilians, and a whole host of other “-ians”, can become President?
“The current debate is jus soli vs jus sanguinis. Does it suffice to be born on American Soil, or be born from American Blood? “
Define American blood. (We’ll give you a pass on “American” vs “Citizen of the U.S.” for this one.)
“If I got a vote, a president would need BOTH. “
If I got a vote, the Constitution would apply, but we would simply define “natural born citizen” as written in the Constitution.
“Yes, that would mean a good and loyal man would not qualify. “
Find one that wants to be a politician. Well, except me of course, but I fear the power might corrupt me.
“Yes, it might mean a total cur would.”
Which SHOULD never make it past the primary.
“The Founding Fathers hoped the voters would stop the latter. Frankly, having seen modern voters, I’m not so sure.”
I used to be an opponent of term limits. I defended it loudly with “aren’t YOU smart enough to vote a bad politician out of office”...it was usually met with murmuring and grumbling. Twenty years later, I’ve change my opinion about term limits, and realized the murmuring and grumbling was them saying “no” (obviously). For example, look at ol’ Chappaquidick Ted. In public service his whole life, and deigns to call himself “leader”.
That's called jus sanguinis It's the same rule England used to press American sons into service in the British navy. That is why I believe our founding Fathers rejected it. The US government does not have absolute rights to the firstborn of every American citizen.
We are citizens not subjects!
Sure, can you define American? So keeping with the spirit of YOUR posts, we can safely assume that Canadians, Mexicans, Columbians, Somoans, Brazilians, and a whole host of other “-ians”, can become President?
Nope, none of those country names include the word American. Can we step back from Hyperbole-land? That is neither what I said, nor what I meant, and you know it.
Besides, let’s see YOU define the word “IS” without using the word “IS”.
The third person, singular, present indicative of 'to be'
Define American blood. (We’ll give you a pass on “American” vs “Citizen of the U.S.” for this one.)
Any citizen of the United States has American blood flowing their veins.
Not every citizen can be president.
but we would simply define “natural born citizen” as written in the Constitution.
If only it actually was defined in the Constitution, we wouldn't be agonizing over it right now, would we?
Find one that wants to be a politician. Well, except me of course, but I fear the power might corrupt me.
*sigh* Me too. Besides, I could never survive the vetting process...
I used to be an opponent of term limits. I defended it loudly with “aren’t YOU smart enough to vote a bad politician out of office”...it was usually met with murmuring and grumbling. Twenty years later, I’ve change my opinion about term limits, and realized the murmuring and grumbling was them saying “no” (obviously). For example, look at ol’ Chappaquidick Ted. In public service his whole life, and deigns to call himself “leader”.
Yeah.